The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Bert S. McLaughlin, qualifies for licensure as an unlimited electrical contractor in the state of Florida by endorsement pursuant to Section 489.511, Florida Statutes. Whether the Resolution adopted by the Florida Electrical Contractrors' Board (Board) on July 19, 1985 and readopted in substance on March 30, 1987 and May 15, 1987 estops the Board from denying the Petitioner an unlimited electrical contractor's license by endorsement pursuant to Section 489.511, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: On July 19, 1985, the Florida Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board (Board) adopted a Resolution which provides in pertinent part as follows: WHEREAS, the Florida Electrical Contractors Licensing Board has diligently compared its licensing standards with those of the unlimited electrical contractors licensed by the North Carolina State Board of Examiners of Electrical Contractors, and, WHEREAS, the Florida Electrical Contractors Licensing Board has thoroughly reviewed the examinations that North Carolina candidates for unlimited licensure must pass and found them substantially similar to or equivalent to, the Florida licensure examination, now, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Florida Electrical Contractors Licensing Board will, upon receipt of a properly completed application from a properly licensed unlimited North Carolina electrical contractor who has obtained licensure by the North Carolina written exam, license by endorsement in accordance with Section 489.511(9), Florida Statutes NOTICE OF CANCELLATION, this Resolution may be rescinded upon 90 days notice to North Carolina, if it is determined by the Florida Electrical Contractors Licensing Board, that the licensing standards for unlimited electrical contractors in North Carolina are no longer comparable with the licensing standards of certified electrical contractors licensed pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes The above Resolution was readopted in substance by the Board on March 30, 1987 and Nay 15, 1987. The Board made a specific finding on May 15, 1987, when it readopted the Resolution, that the North Carolina examination for unlimited electrical contractors were "substantially similar to or equivalent to, the Florida licensure examination." The Board relied on that finding, without any further finding as to equivalency of the examinations, to grant licensure by endorsement from unlimited electrical contractors licensed in North Carolina who had successfully passed the North Carolina written unlimited electrical contractors examination up until August 31, 1988. In October, 1988, the issue of the equivalency of the Florida examinations and the North Carolina examinations was raised by the Board. In December, 1988, the Board was provided current and previous examination blueprints of the North Carolina examinations by Block and Associates, who prepared the North Carolina examinations. Upon review of the examination blueprints of the North Carolina examinations, the Board determined that the North Carolina examinations were not "substantially equivalent to" the Florida examinations. This finding was based mainly on the fact that North Carolina's examinations did not contain any portion on business which the Board considered essential. From the documents reviewed by the Board, the Board was unable to make a determination as to whether the business portion of the examination was included in the North Carolina examinations at the time of its finding of equivalency on May 15, 1987. However, the Board did determine apparently based on those documents, no later than its February 1, 1989, meeting, that at the time Petitioner took the North Carolina examination on September 23, 1988 it did not contain a business portion, and thereby was not "substantially equivalent to" the Florida examination. Petitioner took and passed the examination in North Carolina for unlimited electrical contractors on September 23, 1988. On November 28, 1988, Petitioner was granted a unlimited classification licence to practice electrical contracting in the state of North Carolina. Petitioner submitted an application to the Board on December 8, 1988, for licensure as an unlimited electrical contractor in the state of Florida by endorsement based on having passed the North Carolina examination, being licensed in the state of North Carolina as an unlimited electrical contractor and practicing electrical contracting in the state of North Carolina. On December 22, 1988, the state of North Carolina was notified by Paul H. Morgan, Jr., Chairman, Florida Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board that the 90 day cancellation provision of the Resolution was in effect and the "endorsement agreement" would be cancelled effective March 22, 1989. The Board did not officially authorize the letter by Mr. Morgan. The Board's official position was that the "endorsement agreement" was of no effect. Petitioner obtained a City of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, City Privilege License, as an electrical contractor with one helper on January 5, 1989. At its February 1, 1989, meeting the Board reviewed Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsemert, and by letter dated February 28, 1989, advised Petitioner of its denial based on the criteria for issuance of his North Carolina license not being equivalent to the criteria set forth for licensure in the state of Florida at the time Petitioner received his North Carolina license. At its March 15, 1989, meeting the Board again reviewed Petitioner's application, and by letter dated March 15, 1989, advised Petitioner of its decision to uphold its denial of his application of February 1, 1989 as set out in its letter of February 28, 1989. Although not specifically addressed in the letters dated February 28, 1989 and March 15, 1989, the criteria which caused the Board concerned was the lack of North Carolina's examination being "substantially equivalent to" the Florida examination, whether the Petitioner had been engaged in electrical contracting in North Carolina immediately preceding his application for licensure by endorsement in Florida and whether North Carolina required Petitioner to show certain financial responsibility standards prior to issuance of Petitioner's electrical contractor's license in North Carolina. In its letter of February 28, 1989 the Board advised Petitioner that although it had denied his application for licensure by endorsement, it had approved his application as one for licensure by examination. The Petitioner has presently elected not to take the Florida unlimited electrical contractors' examination or the examination for licensure as an alarm system contractor. Prior to taking and passing the North Carolina electrical contractor's examination, Petitioner had been engaged in all types of electrical contracting work, including fire alarm installation, in several counties in the state of Florida, and was licensed in several Florida counties as a county master electrical contractor but not as a state certified unlimited electrical contractor. Under the present law in Florida, county master electrical contractors, who are not state certified electrical contractors or licensed to practice alarm system contracting by the state of Florida, cannot practice alarm system contracting in the state of Florida. It was Petitioner's intent at the time of taking the North Carolina examination to open an electrical contractor's business with his brother in North Carolina. Petitioner's primary reason for taking the North Carolina examination was to further this business relationship with his brother in North Carolina.. However, secondary to obtaining the North Carolina license, was licensure by endorsement in Florida. While Petitioner was aware of Florida's "endorsement agreement" with North Carolina at the time he took the North Carolina examination, there was no evidence to show that the Petitioner relied on this "endorsement agreement" to his detriment. Subsequent to obtaining his North Carolina license, Petitioner's brother died, and the North Carolina business was put on the "back burner" so to speak. Two electrical permits for electrical work was "pulled" by Petitioner in the City of Winston-Salem, North Carolina on March 6, 1989 and with the work being inspected and approved on March 8, 1989. A third electrical permit was "pulled" by Petitioner for electrical work in the City of Winston-Salem, North Carolina on March 6, 1989 but there was no evidence to show that this work was completed by Petitioner. There was no evidence to show that the North Carolina electrical contractors' examination was "substantially equivalent to" the Florida electrical contractors' examination. In fact, the Petitioner stipulated at the beginning of the hearing that he was relying entirely on Florida's "endorsement agreement" with North Carolina.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact the Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a unlimited electrical contractor by endorsement. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NUMBER 89-2614 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the Petitioner's proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(2); 3(1); 5(3); 7-8(15); 9(6); 10(7,19); 11(16); 12(18); and 15(9). Proposed findings of fact 4 and 13 are unnecessary to the conclusion reached in the Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 14 is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. See Findings of Fact 11 and 13. Letter referred to the equivalency of criteria. Proposed findings of fact 16 and 18 are rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. See Findings of Fact 4 and 6. Proposed finding of fact 6 is more correctly considered as a Conclusion of Law. Although proposed finding of fact 17 is a restatement of Neely's testimony it is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. See Proposed Finding of Fact 9. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the Respondent's proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(2); 4(4); 5(6,16); 6(8); 7(10); 8(19); 9(11); 10(12) and 11(12). Proposed finding of fact 3 is more correctly described as a Conclusion of Law. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven Meisel, Esquire 5425 St. Augustine Road Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Clark R. Jennings, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Ms. Pat Ard Executive Director Florida Board of Electrical Contractors 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent failed to provide proof of workers' compensation coverage or exemption, and proof of having completed 14 hours of approved continuing education in response to an audit conducted by the Electrical Contractors Licensing Board for the biennium commencing September 1, 1996, and terminating on August 31, 1998, in violation of Subsection 489.533(1)(o), Florida Statutes, by violating Subsections 489.515(3) and 489.517(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G6- 9.011, Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR), the state agency charged with regulating the practice of electrical contracting in Florida and those licensed under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, pursuant to Section 20.165, and Chapter 455, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is, and has been at all times material to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, an electrical contractor licensed by the Electrical Contractors Licensing Board. From 1987 until 2000, the Respondent was a registered electrical contractor, holding license number ER 0010816. Since August of 2000 the Respondent has been a certified electrical contractor holding license number EC 0002356. The Respondent's practice pursuant to his registered license was a prerequisite to issuance of his certified license. All insurance and continuing education requirements for renewal of a license issued by the ECLB are set forth in Sections 489.515 and 489.517, Florida Statutes, as well as Rule 61G6-9.004, Florida Administrative Code, and are identical for certified and registered electrical contractors. In March of 1999 the ECLB conducted a random audit of the insurance and continuing education requirements established in Rule 61G6-9.004, Florida Administrative Code, for the biennium commencing September 1, 1996, and terminating August 31, 1998. The Respondent was one of the licensees randomly chosen for this audit. In response to the initial audit letter sent to the Respondent on March 17, 1999, the Respondent submitted insurance and continuing education documentation. This documentation reflects: no evidence of workers' compensation coverage or exemption for the audit period; no evidence of approved continuing education for the audit period; and no evidence of required liability insurance for the audit period. The continuing education documentation submitted by the Respondent was for the prior biennium, in February 1996. On July 19, 1999, the ECLB forwarded the Respondent a follow-up letter, indicating that he was still lacking the documents enumerated in Finding of Fact Number 5. In response to this letter, the Respondent submitted documentation of the required liability insurance and of workers' compensation for May 1, 1997 through June 22, 1999. At hearing, the Respondent produced a document similar to those previously provided to the DBPR documenting his workmen's compensation insurance from March 1, 1995 to May 1, 1997. The date of this document was the same as the date on the materials previously furnished to DBPR. The Respondent testified that his insurance agent had faxed the requested documents to DBPR and sent copies to him. He received all of the documents substantiating his insurance from May 1, 1997 until June 22, 1999. His agent presumably forwarded or faxed the same documents to DBPR. DBPR produced all the documents except the one for the period of March 1, 1995 until May 1, 1997. The Respondent provided enough information to raise a genuine question whether this document was lost by DBPR. It is concluded that it is as likely DBPR lost the record as it is the record was not sent. There was no additional documentation of the required continuing education submitted at hearing. Subsequent to the completion of the audit, the ECLB initiated a complaint with the Bureau of Consumer Services at DBPR. This complaint alleges that the Respondent failed to document required workers' compensation coverage or exemption for the entire audit period and failed to document required continuing education within the audit period. The Respondent was initially issued citations for resolution of the alleged violations herein. Each of these citations provided for a $500 administrative fine. The continuing education violation was documented as DBPR case number 2000-08338 and the workers' compensation violation was documented as 2000-05654. The Respondent chose to dispute these citations, and as a result, this matter was handled pursuant to the provisions of Section 455.225, Florida Statutes. The Respondent has failed to document completion of hours of board approved continuing education between September 1, 1996 and August 31, 1998. The Respondent failed to obtain any board approved continuing education between September 1, 1996 and August 31, 1998. In DBPR case number 2000-08338, the Petitioner incurred non-legal costs in the amount of $31.70. In DBPR case number 2000-05654, the Petitioner incurred non-legal costs in the amount of $42.47. However, this cost may not be recovered.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered imposing an administrative fine of $500 against the Respondent for Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Respondent be required to pay the non-legal costs incurred by the Petitioner in both agency cases totaling $31.70. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura P. Gaffney, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 David Karably Post Office Box 12 Earleton, Florida 32631 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues are (1) whether engaging in air conditioning contracting regulated by the Florida Electrical Contractors Licensing Board pursuant to Section 489.500 et seq. Part II, Florida Statutes, constitutes exceeding the scope of one's license as an electrical contractor, (2) whether performing air conditioning contracting in the name of "Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning" constitutes operating in a name other than the name his electrical contracting license is issued in, contrary to Subsection 489.533(1)(l), and (3) whether Respondent willfully violated the building codes by venting the heater improperly, failing to get a permit and get work inspected.
Findings Of Fact Notice of hearing was given to Respondent at Route 2, Box 595, Yulee, Florida 32097. Arnold Dixon is and has been at all times material to this case a registered electrical contractor, license number ER0004417. (Pet. Ex. 1 & 2) He has maintained his address of record as Route 2, Box 595, Yulee, Florida 32097. (T-Pg. 6) He has held such license since 1976. (Pet. Ex. 1 & 2) Arnold Dixon does not hold a license, a state registration or certification to engage in contracting as a heating or air conditioning contractor. (Pet. Ex. 4 & 6) Arnold Dixon does hold a Nassau County Occupational License as an electrical contractor and as a heating and air conditioning contractor. No check of local records was conducted to see if he had a local license as an air conditioning contractor. (T-Pg. 22) On or about June 1985, the Respondent's company, Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning, contracted to install an air conditioning and heating unit at the home of John Williams for a contract price of $1985. (Pet. Ex. 5 and T-Pgs. 10 & 11) The work on this contract was done by David Everett, who negotiated the contract. The Respondent's company, Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning, did not obtain a permit to perform the work at the Williams' residence. Inspections on the Williams' job were not called for by Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning. Permits and inspections were required by the applicable building code. (T-Pgs. 25 & 26) Entering into a contract to perform air conditioning and heating work and performing such work is air conditioning contracting, which is regulated under Part I, Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. After installation by Dixon's Hearing and Air Conditioning, the Williams' heating system generated carbon monoxide when operating because there was insufficient fresh air being provided to the unit. Because the air intake was in a closet which restricted the air supply to the hot air handling system, the air handling unit sucked fumes from the exhaust side of the unit back through the unit's combustion chamber and circulated it through the house. The longer the unit ran, the more debris was trapped in the louvered door of the closet and the more combustion gases were pulled through the combustion chamber and distributed through the house by the air handling unit. (T-Pg. 34) According to the manufacturer's representative, the hot air return is required to be ducted into the unit. In this case, the return air was pulled from inside a closet which had louvered doors. No duct was used and this installation was not in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. Although the unit as installed was unsafe and had the potential to kill, no evidence was received that failure to install the unit in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions was a violation of local building code. (T-Pgs. 34- 38) Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning did not hold itself out to be and was not engaged in electrical contracting in fulfilling the Williams' contract. Dixon's Heating and Air Conditioning did hold itself out to be an air conditioning contractor and the work performed in fulfilling the Williams' contract was air conditioning contracting.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the evidence presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following material and relevant facts are found. At no time material hereto was Respondent, Donald Clark, licensed by the State of Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board to engage in construction contracting. At no time material hereto was Cancun Development Company ever qualified or certified by any State of Florida agency as a certified contractor. With knowledge of that he was not licensed by the State of Florida to solicit, engage in, nor contract for construction work, Respondent entered into an oral agreement with homeowner Ms. Eichar to build a second-story addition to her home, located in Indian Rocks Beach, Florida, for a contract price of $30,000.00. Respondent, who was paid by Ms. Eichar a total of $25,000.00, subcontracted with Mr. Erwin, a licensed electrical contractor, to do the electrical work at the Eichar's residence for $2,364.00. Respondent, after notice, failed to attend the formal final hearing regarding this matter. The investigative and prosecution costs to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, excluding cost associated with attorney time, were $550.00.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered by the Department as follows: Finding Respondent, Donald Clark, guilty of having violated Subsection 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint herein filed and imposing as a penalty an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00. Assess costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $550.70. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald Clark 813 East Bloomingdale Avenue Suite 252 Brandon, Florida 32720 Brian A. Higgins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The primary issue for determination in this case is whether Respondent, Bruce P. Boston, engaged in the unlicensed practice of electrical contracting in the State of Florida without being certified or registered in violation of Chapter 489, Part II of the Florida Statutes; and secondarily, if Respondent committed that violation, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Petitioner) is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of electrical contracting in the State of Florida. Respondent's address is 18204 Southwest 200 Street, Archer, Florida 32618. At no time material hereto was Respondent certified or registered in the State of Florida to engage in the practice of electrical contracting or to perform electrical contracting work. Mrs. Dawn Wingert is the owner of the residence located at what is currently designated as 16675 Southwest 143rd Avenue, Archer, Florida. Mrs. Wingert, as lawful owner, had the authority to enter contracts regarding the residence. The Wingert residence was previously known as 110 Park Avenue, Archer, Florida, prior to the assignment of the current address. Wingert entered into a contract with Respondent to perform construction of a carport and perform electrical contracting work at Wingert’s residence subsequent to assignment of the address of 110 Park Avenue, Archer, Florida. Respondent received compensation for the contracted work directly from Wingert via personal check, which Respondent then cashed. Terry Vargas, a licensed electrical contractor having been issued license number ER 13012448, was subsequently contacted by Respondent to perform the electrical contracting work at the Wingert residence. Vargas installed an electrical outlet on the back porch, put a flood light on the back porch, moved the switch board to a more convenient location, and put a security light in the front of Wingert’s residence. All work required electrical fixtures to be permanently affixed and become a permanent part of the structure of the Wingert residence. Although Vargas completed the electrical contracting work at the Wingert residence, Wingert paid the Respondent for the services because the work was contracted for through Respondent. At no time pertinent to this matter did Terry Vargas contract with Wingert to complete the electrical services enumerated above. After he completed the work at Wingert’s residence, Vargas invoiced Respondent for the electrical contracting work. Respondent, however, refused to pay Vargas for the electrical contracting work performed, despite having received compensation for the work from Wingert.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order, in accordance with Section 489.533(2)(c), Florida Statutes, requiring that Respondent pay an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Boston Post Office Box 331 Williston, Florida 32696 Drew F. Winters, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The parties stipulated that the Petitioner's financial responsibility and morals were not an issue. The only basis for the Board's denial was the Petitioner's alleged lack of experience. Petitioner and Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. These proposals are discussed in detail in the Conclusions of Law.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is presently employed as an electrical inspector for Hillsborough County, Florida. He has held this position for approximately two and one-half (2 1/2) years. He holds a master's electrician's license issued by Hillsborough County but is prohibited by terms of his employment as an electrical inspector from engaging in any electrical contracting activity. Petitioner is technically experienced as an electrician. Prior to his employment as an electrical inspector, Petitioner was employed by Mobil Chemical Company which operates several phosphate mines in central Florida. The Petitioner was employed at its Fort Meade mine. The Fort Meade mine, or plant, is a substantial operation producing approximately four (4) million tons of phosphate per year at the time when Petitioner was employed. The mining area occupies several hundred acres and the working or processing area occupies approximately ten (10) of those acres. The working area comprises of a flotation plant, a washer plant, a sizing section, a shipping area where the rock is loaded on railroad cars, a maintenance area, and an office complex. The plant ran three (3) shifts around the clock and employed approximately one hundred (100) persons. All of the major equipment to include the 30 and 40 yard draglines at the Fort Meade plant alone contained in excess of one hundred (100) electric motors each with its own fuse box and disconnect. The Petitioner was employed by Nobil Chemical Company for twenty (20) years (1962-1982); 16 years as an electrician and four years as supervisor of the electrical maintenance at the Fort Meade plant. He was responsible for all electrical repairs, maintenance, and new construction at the plant for all three shifts. His direct superior was the department chief who was in charge of all the electrical departments at all of Mobil's phosphate mining locations. Approximately twenty (20 percent) percent of the Petitioner's time was spent on new construction projects. Approximately forty (40 percent) percent of petitioner's time was spent on regular maintenance and repairs. Fifteen (15 percent) percent of the Petitioner's time was spent on emergency repairs. The remainder of petitioner's time was spent on miscellaneous projects. Petitioner supervised a staff of ten (10) men: two (2) crewmen, four linemen, and four (4) electricians. The Petitioner was responsible for estimating the cost of jobs for his immediate superior to include the cost of materials and the number of man hours. The Petitioner was responsible for counting and reporting the number of hours his employees worked in turning this information into the company's payroll section. Petitioner had the power to request overtime work for his employees and made recommendations concerning hiring and firing personnel. On new construction the Petitioner's responsibilities began with doing takeoffs from blueprints provided for the job and supervising the work through to its completion. He was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the Fort Meade facility to include small electrical motors, large electrical motors, office lighting, transformers, and the large draglines. Petitioner's experience included experience with three (3) phase electrical power, high voltage electrical service, and lower voltages used in small motors, lights and appliances. The electrical department which the Petitioner headed provided service only to Mobil's Fort Meade plant. Mobil is not an electrical contractor; however, its electrical department provided extensive services which are comparable to those an outside electrical contracting service would have provided. Although the petitioner did not prepare a payroll for those persons who he supervised, he did serve as the clerk for his church for five (5) years during which time he was responsible for preparing the payroll for the church's employees. The petitioner applied in 1982 to sit for the electrical contractor's licensing examination. His application was approved by the Respondent and the Petitioner sat for the examination on two occasions, failing both examinations. Petitioner reapplied to sit for the electrical contractor's licensing examination in 1984 and was denied by the Respondent based upon lack of satisfactory experience. The Petitioner held a responsible management position with Mobil at the Fort Meade plant as supervisor of electrical maintenance at the Fort Meade facility for four (4) years. The Petitioner never negotiated a construction contract, was never bonded as a contractor, never obtained insurance to cover his operation as a contractor, and never sought a building permit for any of the electrical work done at the Fort Meade facility.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Electrical Contractors Licensing Board disapprove the application of Cecil U. Lane to sit for the statewide electrical contractor's license. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Jerry W. Hendry Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Electrical Contractors 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eric S. Ruff, Esquire Post Office Box TT Plant City, Florida 33566 Arthur C. Wallberg, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1601 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, who was never licensed as a contractor, engaged in the unlawful practice of contracting when he entered into (and attempted to perform under) an agreement to build a dental office; and whether, if Respondent is found guilty of unlicensed contracting, Petitioner should penalize him by imposing an administrative fine and assessing investigative costs.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation ("Department") has jurisdiction to take punitive action against unlicensed persons who unlawfully engage in the business of contracting. At no time relevant to this proceeding was Respondent James Bresnahan ("Bresnahan") licensed, certified, or registered to do business as a contractor of any sort. In June 2007, Bresnahan entered into a contract with University Dental Health Care Center, Inc. ("University"), whereby, in exchange for University's agreement to pay Bresnahan a total of $42,350 in compensation for his work, Bresnahan promised to remodel a bay at the Shoppes of Rolling Hills ("Rolling Hills"), a shopping center located in Davie, Florida, where University planned to operate a dental office. The contract described the scope of the work that Bresnahan would perform as follows: Remove all walls per plans. Redesign interior space to reflect new office plans. New electrical per plans. New plumbing per plans. New droped [sic] ceiling and lighting per plans per Ken. Finish all walls with new paint colors per Angela. New flooring [illegible] tile to be picked by owner. Install new compressor bracket on back of building. Bring all utilities to dental chairs (vac[uum], water, electric, air and drain; five chairs per plans per Ken. Proposal is for drawings and permits and construction of office. Cabinets and installation by others. Equipment and plumbing fixtures by others per Ken. Handycap [sic] bathroom by Shops [sic] of Rolling Hills. (Quoted text reformatted from "all uppercase" to "sentence case.") Bresnahan had not previously undertaken a construction project such as this. He had, however, overseen the build-out of his wife's bakery, which was located in Rolling Hills. For that project, Bresnahan had engaged a general contractor, Johnson Beckett, Inc. ("Johnson Beckett"). Bresnahan, in other words, had been the client, Johnson Beckett the builder. Bresnahan had been introduced to University's principals by their mutual landlord, who——perhaps being unaware of Bresnahan's actual role in the construction of the bakery—— touted Bresnahan as a "builder." Bresnahan had not advertised or promoted himself as a builder, but neither did he disclaim such expertise upon meeting the principals of University; to the contrary, he ultimately offered to build a dental office for University, leading to the contract described above. On June 21, 2007, upon entering into the construction agreement with Bresnahan, University made a down payment of $10,000 to Bresnahan. Because he was not in fact a builder, Bresnahan's plan was to use this money, and other payments he would receive from University, to hire Johnson Beckett to act as the "general contractor" for all aspects of the project except the plumbing and electrical work, for which Bresnahan intended to engage separate subcontractors. Johnson Beckett would not bid a fixed price for the project, however, without a proper construction plan. Consequently, Bresnahan entered into a contract (in his personal capacity, not as an agent for University) with Johnson Beckett, pursuant to which the general contactor was to obtain a blueprint for the dental office project, appropriately sealed by a licensed engineer. For this drafting work, Bresnahan agreed to pay Johnson Beckett $5,000. As Johnson Beckett proceeded, it encountered some difficulty in obtaining information, which the engineer needed, concerning the equipment that would be installed in the dental office. Meantime, little or no work was being accomplished at the jobsite, which began to create tensions between Bresnahan and University. Nevertheless, University gave Bresnahan another check, for $5,000, on July 19, 2007. As the weeks passed, however, University became increasingly frustrated at the lack of tangible progress; it began to lose patience with Bresnahan. When Linda Commons, an owner of the company, started pressing Bresnahan for an accounting, the relationship deteriorated further. On or around August 21, 2007, Bresnahan sent University a letter that announced he was unilaterally canceling their contract. Thereupon, Bresnahan abandoned the job. As of the final hearing, Bresnahan had not refunded to University any of the compensation he received. In connection with the instant matter, the Department has incurred investigative costs in the amount of $209.55. Ultimate Factual Determinations Bresnahan's negotiation of, entry into, and attempt to perform under the construction agreement with University constituted the practice of contracting under Florida law. Thus, Bresnahan, who was not a licensed contractor, is guilty of unlicensed contracting, as charged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint. Bresnahan's negotiation of, entry into, and attempt to perform under the construction agreement with University also constituted the practice of electrical contracting under Florida law. Thus, Bresnahan, who was not a licensed electrical contractor, is guilty of unlicensed electrical contracting, as charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order which: (1) finds Bresnahan guilty of (a) engaging in the business of contracting without a license and (b) practicing electrical contracting without a license; (2) imposes an administrative fine of $10,000 for these incidents of unlicensed contracting; and (3) assesses investigative costs in the amount of $209.55. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.stae.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Sorin Ardelean, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 James Bresnahan 4950 Southwest 70th Avenue Davie, Florida 33314 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 G.W. Harrell, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Department of Business and Professional Regulation Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors Licensing Board, appropriately denied Petitioner's, Kevin Harrington, application to take the examination for licensure as an electrical contractor.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is the state agency vested with the authority to test applicants seeking certification as electrical contractors. Petitioner is seeking certification (licensure) as an electrical contractor. On December 12, 2001, Respondent received Petitioner's application to take the Electrical Contractors Unlimited examination. On December 24, 2001, Respondent mailed Petitioner a letter requesting additional information. The letter requested that the additional information be received by Respondent no later than January 4, 2002. This date was later extended to January 8, 2002. On January 4 and January 7, 2002, Petitioner, through his attorney, forwarded the requested additional information to Respondent. Petitioner's application was complete on January 10, 2002. Respondent, Electrical Contractors Licensing Board("Board"), met on January 16 and 17, 2002. The Board delegates initial consideration of applications to take certification examinations to an Applications Committee consisting of members of the Board who make recommendations to the full Board on each application. Each application is examined by at least two Applications Committee members; if both recommend "denial of the application," or, if one recommends "approval of the application" and one recommends "denial of the application," the application is reviewed by a third Applications Committee member. Each member of the Applications Committee is provided a worksheet as a part of the application package which lists reasons for denial drawn from Subsection 489.511(2)(a)(3), Florida Statutes. After each application is considered by members of the Applications Committee, the application with the Applications Committee's recommendations, reasons for denial (if applicable), and other comments are given to a staff employee who prepares an approved/denial list which is presented to the full Board for consideration. The foregoing procedure was followed in the instant case. On January 16, 2002, Board members, Roger Lange and Kim DeBerry, who were members of the Applications Committee, considered Petitioner's application; both recommended denial of the application. Because there were two recommendations of denial, the application was considered by a third Applications Committee member, Dawn Johnson; she, too, recommended denial. Petitioner's application and the recommendations, reasons for denial, and comments of the Applications Committee were then given to a staff employee who prepared a summary list of all applicants with the recommendations for approval or denial by the Applications Committee with reasons given for denial for submission to the full Board. The full Electrical Contractors Licensing Board considered Petitioner's application on January 17, 2002, and unanimously denied the application. Petitioner was advised of the denial by letter dated February 8, 2002. Petitioner's Applicant's Affidavit dated November 16, 2001, indicates that he was seeking a license under Subsection 489 .511(2)(a)(3)(a), Florida Statutes. The Applicant's Affidavit specifically states: 489.511(2)(a)(3)(a), F.S. Has, within the six (6) years immediately preceding the filing of the application, at least three (3) years proven "management experience" in the trade or education equivalent thereto, or a combination thereof, but not more than one- half of such experience may be educational. (Please submit at least three (3) years of W- 2 Forms) The occupational skills and responsibilities of an electrical contractor are unique and require experience and understanding which are typically acquired by extensive, direct "on-the-job" training in the electrical contracting trade. Petitioner is an experienced General Contractor's project manager. His credentials as a General Contractor's project manager are impressive and the projects he has supervised are extensive. Petitioner has little or no direct supervisory experience in the electrical contracting trade. Petitioner's construction management experience is as a General Contractor project manager, not an Electrical Contractor project manager or similar position, and, as a consequence, he does not meet the "'management experience' in the trade" statutory requirement. Petitioner has an enviable academic record: an Associate of Science Degree With Honors from Miami-Dade Community College (1990), a Bachelor of Science in Building Construction from University of Florida (1993), 21 hours of graduate studies at Florida International University leading towards a Master of Building Construction degree. Petitioner's academic credentials have little direct application to the electrical contracting trade and, as a consequence, do not meet the "educational equivalent" to management experience statutory requirement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner's application to take the Certified Electrical Contractor's Licensure Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Rockhill Edwards, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Rosemary Hanna Hayes, Esquire Hayes & Associates 3117 Edgewater Drive Orlando, Florida 32804 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding Respondent was a registered building contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license number RB 0009164. At no time material to this proceeding was Domingo Alonzo (a/k/a Domingo Alonzo) registered, certified or otherwise licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Respondent and Alonzo signed and submitted a proposal to Myron M. Gold and Roberta Fox for remodeling and additions to their residence located at 1550 Zuleta Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida in accordance with plans prepared by Frese - Camner Associates on file with the City of Coral Gables, Florida, File No. 2897 for a contract price of $65,940.00 with draw schedules attached. On December 6, 1982, Myron M. Gold and Roberta Fox (Homeowners) accepted the Proposal (Contract). On December 6, 1982, the Homeowners paid Respondent and Alonzo jointly $3,297.00 in accordance with the contract whereby they were to receive 5 percent of the contract amount as a down payment upon signing. The draw schedule provided for a 10 percent retainage from each draw which was to be paid to Respondent and Alonzo upon completion and the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. On December 21, 1982 the Homeowners paid Respondent and Alonzo jointly $2,025.00 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 3 for $1,350.00, Schedule II - Item 2 for $360.00 and Item 5 for $315.00. On December 17, 1982 the Homeowners and Respondent filed the affidavit required by ordinance with the City of Coral Gables for the purpose of having a building permit issued covering the work under the contract. 9. On January 19, 1983 Respondent using his building contractors license applied for building permit to cover the work anticipated under the contract and on the same day was issued building permit, No. 28214. Under the contract the Homeowners were to pay for the building permit and the bond required by the city. On January 26, 1983 the Homeowners paid Respondent and Alonzo jointly $3,000.00 which along with a payment on January 27, 1983 of $500.00 and January 31, 1983 of $544.60 represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 2 for $405.00, Item 5 for $1,260.00, Item 6 for $1,547.10 and Item 13 for $832.50. All payments from December 6, 1982 through January 31, 1983 under the contract by the Homeowners totaled $9,366.50 and were paid jointly to Respondent and Alonzo. On February 4, 1983 Respondent and Alonzo entered into an agreement, prepared by Myron Gold in the law office of Gold and Fox, whereby the Homeowners were to pay the balance of the funds remaining under the contract to Alonzo individually. After this date all payments were made to Alonzo. It was the Homeowners understanding after the February 3, 1983 agreement that Respondent would still be responsible for the supervision of the construction although they never saw Respondent again until October 1983. Edward Borysiewicz testified that he dealt with Respondent during March 1983 when he made the floor slab inspection on March 3, 1983 and the columns inspection on March 14, 1983. The record is clear that shortly after the agreement on February 3, 1983 Respondent no longer came to the construction site and supervised the work of Alonzo. On February 8, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $3,060.00 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 1 for $810.00, Item 5 for $1,417.50 and Item 13 for $832.50. On February 28, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $3,155.40 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 4 for $1,705.50 and $729.90 for extras apparently not covered by the contract but whether the balance of check No. 1161 (Pet. Ex. 13) of $720.00 was for payment under the contract or for extras is not shown in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15. On March 18, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $1,000 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 9 for $819.00. Again whether the balance of check No. 1206 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13) of $181.00 is for payment under the contract or for extras is not shown in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15. On March 21, 1983, the Homeowners paid Alonzo $6,400.00 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Items 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15. On March 21, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $2,166.90 but Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15 does not list check No. 1210 as being a payment under the contract or for extras. On March 31, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $4,230.00 which represents a draw under Schedule I - Item 7 for $2,520.00 and a payment for extras not covered under the contract in the amount of $1,710.00. On April 21, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $5,207.40 which represented a draw Schedule I - Items 1, 5, 6, 9 and 14. On June 24, 1983 the Homeowners paid Alonzo $5,788.00 which represented a draw on Schedule I - Item 12 for $667.00, Item 14 for $3,024.00 and payment for extras not under contract for $2,097.00. After March 14, 1983 Respondent was not seen on the job site and there was no longer any apparent supervision of Alonzo by Respondent. After Respondent left the job site there was no licensed building contractor involved in the construction. After Respondent left the construction site the Homeowners soon realized that Alonzo did not know how to proceed with the work and experienced problems with the pace and manner in which the work was being accomplished. On July, 1983, Alonzo stopped working altogether. Although the Homeowners were aware of the problems that Alonzo was having with the construction and that Respondent was not on the job, the record does not reflect that they ever attempted to contact Respondent after the meeting on February 3, 1983. On August 1, 1983 the Homeowners notified Respondent and Alonzo that the contract had been terminated. The Homeowners paid Respondent and Alonzo $42,174.20 total under the contract (pages 1-5, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15) and paid Alonzo $10,766.37 for extras (Pages 6- 10, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15). On August 31, 1983 the Homeowners paid Edward Bryant, plastering contractor the sum of $3,100.00 for plastering performed by Edward Bryant. This was for work under the contract that had not been completed or work necessary to correct problems that were already completed. Roberta Fox testified that there were no extras on plaster, however, page 7, line 11 and page 9, line 21 of Petitioner's Exhibit 15 indicates that there was extra plastering. On August 29, 1983 and September 29, 1983 the Homeowners paid Southwest Plumbing Services, Inc. the total amount of $4,875.00 for work contemplated under the contract that had not been completed or needed correction. Homeowners had paid Alonzo $3,591.00 for plumbing under the contract. Both Alonzo and Southwest Plumbing, Inc. were paid for extra plumbing not covered by the contract in the amount of $567.00 and $391.50, respectively by the Homeowners. From September 13, 1983 through June 13, 1984 the Homeowners paid Charles Brueg, Jim Brueg, Charles Buffington and Dan, Inc. the total amount of $4,192.91 for electrical work contemplated under the contract that was not completed or required correction after Alonzo left the construction site. Page 6 lines 6 and 11 of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15 indicate that there were extras not covered by the contract. The total amount for electricity contemplated by the contract was $3,649.00. Alonzo was paid $2,627.10 under the contract and $1,710.00 for extras. The Homeowners were required to obtain the services of an air conditioning contractor to complete the work contemplated under the contract after Alonzo left the job site and as a result were required to pay Cameron, Inc., the air conditioning contract the amount of $5,181.60 between August 16, 1983 and January 24, 1984. The total amount contemplated under the contract was $3,600.00 of which $1,134.00 had been paid to Alonzo. Debris was dumped in the swimming pool requiring the Homeowners to pay $7,000 to refurbish the swimming pool. This amount included the repair contemplated under the contract and the extra work caused by Alonzo. The contract contemplated $2,300.00 for repairs of which none had been paid to Respondent or Alonzo. The Homeowners paid $1,150.00 to a painting contractor to finish the painting contemplated under the contract. Alonzo had been paid $1,125.00 for painting. (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15) The contract provided $2,500.00 for all painting required under the contract. Respondent failed to notify the building department that he was no longer responsible for the construction. After the Homeowners terminated the contract due to Respondent's and Alonzo's nonperformance, the Homeowners had to expend a substantial amount of extra money to complete the construction. The evidence is insufficient to determine an exact or approximate amount. Roberta Fox's testimony was conflicting with regard to her understanding as to whether or not the Respondent would continue to supervise the construction after the meeting in the Homeowners' law office on February 3, 1983 when Respondent and Alonzo entered into this agreement. Myron Gold testified that it was his understanding that Respondent would continue to supervise Alonzo after the agreement. However, the Homeowners action in this regard subsequent to February 3, 1983, in making no effort to bring the matter to a "head" and requiring Respondent to supervise the work or terminate the contract and in continuing to deal with Alonzo although Homeowners were aware shortly after February 3, 1983 that Alonzo could not perform without Respondent's supervision and that they knew Respondent was not on the job, tends to show that they were aware or should have been aware that Respondent was no longer involved in the day to day supervision of the construction. Alonzo installed a fireplace pursuant to the contract that the building department determined to be a fire hazard and recommended against its use. The Homeowners applied for and were granted a "owner/builder" permit on September 1, 1983 and requested cancellation of the building permit issued to Respondent which was cancelled on September 6, 1983. They have not received a certificate of occupancy because the building department has not performed the following inspection: electrical final; plumbing final; air conditioning final; roofing final and public works final. The building department would have issued a "stop-work order" had it been aware that Respondent was not supervising the construction and would have required the Homeowners to obtain another licensed building contractor or proceed as a owner/builder. The plans prepared by Frese-Camner Associates that were made a part of the contract by reference were not introduced into evidence with the contract and thus the record is insufficient to determine what was required to meet the specifications of the plans and thereby determine if the specifications had been met. There was a permit issued for the septic tank and drain field which work was started in December, 1982. The construction of the house itself was started in January 1983. The first inspection (foundation) on the house was made by the building department of January 21, 1983.
Recommendation Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is Recommended that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(h)(k)(m), Florida Statutes (1981) and for such violations it is Recommended that the Board assess the Respondent with an administrative fine of $500.00 and suspend the Respondent's contracting license for a period of three (3) years, provided, however, that if Respondent submits to the Board competent and substantial evidence of restitution to Myron Gold and Roberta Fox within one (1) year from the date of the final order herein, then the suspension shall be stayed and Respondent placed on probation for the balance of the suspension. Respectfully submitted and entered this 6th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 84-2529 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. RULINGS ON PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12 except clarified as to the last date on construction site. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22 and 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact24 but clarified to show correct amount paid under contract as indicated by Petitioner's Exhibit 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25 but clarified to show that extra plastering not under contract was required. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 30 but clarified. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in Finding of Fact 32 but clarified to show that the record does not support a figure that approximate $32,000.00. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence even though the Homeowners' testimony supported this fact because the Homeowners' actions with regard to Respondent after February 3, 1983, was to the contrary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. Adopted in Finding of Fact 36. RULINGS ON PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT: No Findings of Fact was submitted by the Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: James Linnan, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. Douglas Beason Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. George J. Soler, Pro Se 3315 S.W. 96th Avenue Miami, Florida 33165
